Think Forward.

Cartographier le Monde 4/5 441

Barbara Decelle, 15 d.
Les mythes du Vieil Home Coyote et celui des Jumeaux primordiaux sont particulièrement intéressants car ils ne proposent pas seulement une explication sur la naissance du monde ou comment les humains ont été créés — ou sont devenus les humains que nous connaissons — mais aussi pourquoi l’ours hiberne, pourquoi les hommes disposent d’armes quand les animaux n’en ont pas ou encore la séparation entre la vie et la mort. Ils sont également surprenants à plus d’un point de vue. Le conte du Vieil Homme Coyote ne mentionne ni être tout-puissant et omniscient, ni divinités anthropomorphes auxquelles les humains devraient respect et obéissance. On y rencontre plutôt des entités dont les frontières nous semblent mal définies : animaux ? humains ? ancêtres ? totems ? Tous parlent et s’expriment. Le nom même du personnage central — Vieil Homme Coyote — illustre cette ambiguïté. L’humain n’y occupe pas de position particulière et plusieurs animaux, comme les canards ou les coyotes, jouent un rôle central dans le récit. Le récit japonais des jumeaux cosmiques présente une configuration très différente. Les protagonistes y sont clairement anthropomorphiques, mais ils semblent eux-mêmes soumis à des forces ou à des lois implicites. Les animaux, quant à eux, sont totalement absents du récit. Pour un lecteur néophyte, on y reconnaît à peine le motif du plongeon cosmogonique, et aucun personnage n’incarne une puissance créatrice souveraine. Dans notre aire culturelle, les mythes de l’Antiquité ont progressivement marginalisé ces récits plus anciens dont nous avons presque entièrement oublié l’existence. Puis la Genèse a, à son tour rempli cette fonction. Dieu, tel que nous le connaissons aujourd’hui, crée le monde puis l’homme, l’Adam, en lui accordant une place singulière au sein de la création. Façonné à l’image de Dieu, l’homme se voit non seulement confier la responsabilité de nommer les autres êtres vivants, mais également celle de « commander au poisson de la mer, à l’oiseau du ciel, aux bêtes et à toute la terre » (La Bible, Nouvelle traduction, 2009). Ce passage introduit d’ailleurs une hiérarchie explicite entre l’humain et l’animal, qui ne se retrouve pas nécessairement dans de nombreuses cosmologies animistes ou polythéistes. Ce récit biblique a-t-il, à lui seul, transformé les relations concrètes entre humains et animaux ? Sans pouvoir l’affirmer de manière certaine, il semble raisonnable de considérer que la diffusion institutionnalisée des textes bibliques a contribué à cristalliser cette représentation hiérarchisée, qui perdure probablement encore aujourd’hui et continue d’influencer notre perception de l’homme et de sa place dans la nature, et ce, même au sein de la communauté scientifique. Alors comment positionner les théories scientifiques modernes — telles que le modèle du Big Bang ou la théorie de l’évolution? Bien que basées sur des démarches cognitives bien différentes basées sur l’observations, l’expérimentation et modélisation, ces théories occupent aujourd’hui une place centrale dans la représentation partagée de l’origine et de la structure du monde. Il ne s’agit évidemment pas ici de comparer leur validité ou les processus cognitifs en œuvre pour l’un ou l’autre, mais d’observer que ces différentes productions humaines remplissent, à des époques distinctes, une fonction analogue : offrir aux groupes et aux individus une lecture commune du monde qui les entoure.
Barbara Decelle Barbara Decelle

Barbara Decelle

Anthropologiste ratée mais biologiste de coeur et de formation - J'explore actuellement les récits (mythes, contes, légendes, etc) en quête d'un projet de recherche en mythologie computationnelle


1900

0

Football: When Passion Kills the Game in Impunity and Tolerance.. 491

Aziz Daouda, 2 d.
- Society - Sports -
2.7 min read.
Football (Soccer for Americans) is first and foremost a matter of emotions. By its very essence, it is an open-air theater where human passions play out in their rawest, most primal form. It generates joy, anger, pride, humiliation, and a sense of belonging. From the stands of Camp Nou to those of the Diego Armando Maradona Stadium, through the fervor of the Mohamed V sport Complex in Casablanca, the vibrant enclosures of Stade Léopold Sédar Senghor in Dakar, or even the Parc des Princes in Paris, the Vélodrome In Marseille, and the Bernabeu In Madrid, football transcends the mere framework of the game to become a total social phenomenon. But this emotional intensity, which makes football's beauty, also constitutes its danger. For without rigorous regulation, it quickly tips into excess, then into violence. Today, it must be acknowledged that the rules exist, but they are too often circumvented, stripped of their substance, or applied with disconcerting leniency. On the pitches as in the stands, excesses are multiplying: insults toward referees, provocations between players, systematic challenges, physical violence, projectile throwing, pitch invasions, xenophobic remarks, racist offenses. What was once the exception is tending to become a tolerated norm. Astonishingly, we are starting to get used to it. Recent examples are telling. In Spain, in stadiums renowned for their football culture, racist chants continue to be belted out without shame, targeting players like Vinícius Júnior. Most recently, it was the Muslim community that was insulted. And yet, Spain's current football prodigy is Muslim. An overheated crowd that has doubtless forgotten it wasn't so long ago that it was Muslim itself. Among those chanting these remarks, and without a doubt, some still carry the genes of that recent past... In Dakar, just a few days ago, clashes escalated, turning a sports celebration into a scene of chaos. In Italy, incidents involving supporters who invaded the pitch, during a friendly match, no less, endangered players and officials, recalling the dark hours of European hooliganism in the 1980s. These episodes are not isolated; they reflect a worrying normalization of violence in and around stadiums. Even at the highest level of African football, behavioral excesses are becoming problematic. The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final left a bitter taste. What should have been a moment of celebration for continental football was marred by behaviors contrary to sporting ethics. Pressures on refereeing, excessive challenges, and game interruptions have become commonplace. When a coach manipulates a match's rhythm to influence a refereeing decision, it is no longer strategy but a challenge to the very foundations of the sport. Despite international outrage, the sanctions imposed on teams, clubs, or players involved remain often symbolic, insufficient to eradicate these behaviors. A very surprising phenomenon: rarely have clubs or federations clearly distanced themselves from such crowds. They accommodate them, and when they condemn them, it is half-heartedly, in a muffled, timid tone with no effect. The problem is twofold. On one hand, disciplinary regulations exist but lack firmness. On the other, their application suffers from a lack of consistency and political courage. Bodies like FIFA, continental confederations, and national federations hesitate to impose truly dissuasive sanctions such as point deductions, prolonged closed-door matches, competition exclusions, or even administrative relegations. Yet without fear of sanction, the rule loses all effectiveness. It suffices to compare with other sports to measure the gap. In rugby, for example, respect for the referee is a cardinal value. The slightest challenge is immediately sanctioned. In athletics, a false start leads to immediate disqualification, no discussion. Football, meanwhile, still tolerates too many behaviors that should be unacceptable. This permissiveness has a cost. It undermines football's image, discourages some families from attending stadiums, and endangers the safety of the game's actors. More gravely, it paves the way for future tragedies. History has already taught us, through catastrophes like the Heysel Stadium disaster, that violence in stadiums can have tragic consequences. It is therefore urgent to react. Regulating football does not mean killing its soul, but rather preserving it. It is not about extinguishing passions, but channeling them. This requires strong measures, exemplary sanctions against offending clubs and players, accountability for national federations, increased use of technology to identify troublemakers, and above all, a clear political will from national and international governing bodies. Football cannot continue to be this "market of emotion" left to its own devices. For by tolerating the intolerable, it risks losing what makes its greatness and its ability to unite rather than divide. If FIFA does not decide to act firmly, the danger is real: that of seeing football sink into a spiral where violence triumphs over the game, and where, one day, tragedies exceed the mere framework of sport. The long-awaited decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the 2025 AFCON final case should confirm rigor and integrity in the application of rules, at least at this level, thereby strengthening the credibility of the pan-African competition and football in general.

April 2026 or the Certain Confirmation of the Moroccan Victory... 686

Aziz Daouda, 3 d.
- World Politics - History -
3 min read.
We are entering a decisive month of April. The international dynamic is shifting even further in Morocco's favor on the Sahara issue. April once again promises to be a pivotal moment in the international handling of the Moroccan Sahara question. This structuring diplomatic ritual corresponds to the presentation of the annual report by the UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy to the Security Council. But this year, the context is profoundly different. The lines have shifted, balances have been redrawn, and a new dynamic is taking hold, clearly favorable to Morocco, a logical follow-up to the adoption of Resolution 2797, with strong structuring potential. The adoption of this resolution marks an essential milestone. It goes beyond simply renewing the existing framework. It consolidates a political direction initiated over several years, by enshrining the preeminence of a realistic, pragmatic, and sustainable political solution, centered exclusively on the Moroccan autonomy initiative. This resolution fits into a strategic continuity that progressively marginalizes unrealistic options, those that long relied on outdated or inapplicable references in the current geopolitical context. It also increases pressure on the parties to engage in a credible political process under the exclusive auspices of the United Nations, but in reality under strong American pressure. The United States has directly engaged in favor of the Kingdom, with the return of roundtables in Madrid and then Washington as key pivots. These meetings have confirmed a diplomatic reality that is now hard to contest. The format of the gatherings, including Morocco, Mauritania, the Polisario Front, and Algeria despite itself, is the only relevant framework for progress. It implicitly enshrines Algeria's central role, long eager to present itself as a mere observer. Its active participation, even forced, places it at the heart of the dispute, profoundly altering the reading of the conflict and redistributing political responsibilities. Madrid and Washington are not insignificant venues. They reflect the growing involvement of Western powers in seeking a resolution, with increasing convergence around the Moroccan proposal. One of the expected developments this month concerns the future of MINURSO. The time has come to redefine the mission. From its inception, it has never fulfilled the role for which it was established. A major evolution is likely emerging in support of implementing autonomy in the southern provinces within the framework of the Kingdom's sovereignty. Long confined to monitoring the ceasefire, the mission will see its name change and its mandate evolve to adapt to on-the-ground realities and the demands of a renewed political process. Such a change would be highly significant. It would mark the end of UN inertia and reflect the international community's will to move from managing the status quo to an active and definitive resolution logic. Much to the dismay of those who, for 50 years, have done everything to perpetuate the conflict through their proxy; the latter is increasingly suffering from the shifting landscape. Washington has toughened its tone and put the Polisario in its sights. Algeria is evidently feeling the effects. The introduction in the US Congress of a proposal to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization represents a potentially major turning point. If successful, such a designation would have considerable political, financial, and diplomatic consequences. It would further isolate the movement, weaken its supporters, and reshape the balance of power. Above all, it would reinforce the security reading of the dossier, in a Sahel-Saharan context marked by rising transnational threats. This adds to a Security Council increasingly aligned with the Moroccan position. The Council's current composition clearly leans in favor of Moroccan positions. Several influential members explicitly or implicitly support the autonomy initiative, seen as the most serious and credible basis for settlement. This shift is no accident. It results from active, coherent, and consistent Moroccan diplomacy, which has successfully embedded the Sahara issue within logics of regional stability, counter-terrorism, and economic development. Algeria, for its part, faces its contradictions. In this context, the Algerian regime appears increasingly beleaguered. Its positioning, long structured around ideological rhetoric and systematic opposition to Morocco, now seems out of step with international system evolutions. Algiers' relative diplomatic isolation, including in its Sahelian environment, contrasts with its regional ambitions. Internally, economic and social challenges exacerbate tensions in a country with considerable resources but unevenly distributed benefits. Algerian populations suffer from much injustice and lack the essentials. The Sahara issue, instrumentalized for decades as a lever for foreign policy and internal cohesion, thus reveals the limits of a politically exhausted model. The trend thus confirms a historic turning point depriving the Algerian regime of its artificial political rent. All elements converge toward one conclusion: April 2026 could mark a decisive step in the evolution of the Moroccan Sahara dossier. Without prejudging an immediate outcome, current dynamics are progressively narrowing the space for blocking positions. More than ever, resolving this conflict seems to hinge on recognizing geopolitical realities and adhering to a pragmatic political solution. In this perspective, Morocco appears in a position of strength, bolstered by growing legitimacy and increasingly assertive international support. The question remains whether other actors, particularly Algeria, will adapt to this new reality or choose to oppose it at the risk of greater isolation in a world where balances of power evolve rapidly. There will undoubtedly be a before and after April 2026, and above all, the consolidation of a Moroccan position oriented toward further development of the southern provinces. The Security Council's output is awaited in this direction.